Well, hence the first amendment, speech has always been, or at least should always be "free." If we are going to say money is the equivalent of speech, and money is not free in any sense of the word, than speech is not free. Giving an insane amount of money to a candidate isn't expressing yourself most of the time; it's furthering your agenda. Even when someone is personally motivated, their right to exercise free speech by giving thousands of dollars to candidates is more powerful than that of the average person, and free speech therefore is no longer a right.
My point was rather that money has always furthered the speech of those who have it. It's use for such, so far as I know, has yet to be curtailed in any meaningful way. The recent ruling only continues an ongoing trend, I think.
We most certainly can and should. As shown in the link, other countries have already done this.
None of those examples are acceptable to me.
I'm talking complete removal of money from politics.
No contributions to politicians campaigns are allowed.
No spending by politicians on campaigns are allowed.
No contributions to or spending from 3rd parties on behalf of a politician or their campaign is allowed.
No significant gifts from anyone, including family members.
Politicians are not allowed to maintain any prior investments of any form, or make any new ones for a period of time beginning when they announce their intention to campaign and extending until 5 years after their last term ends.
Politicians are not allowed to create or sell any products or media for the same period of time.
Politicians are not allowed to
I could go on.
But, in short, if you decide to become a politician, you give up all rights to any other source of income until 5 years after you leave office.
**** I dunno.
Edit: It's kinda like going to prison, or something, except it's voluntary.